Triad Today

Once upon a time, North Carolina was known for its outstanding representatives in Washington. Democrats like Sam Ervin and Richardson Pryor, and Republicans like Howard Coble and Jim Broyhill were widely respected for their integrity. Ervin got us through Watergate, Pryor helmed a committee that largely disproved the Warren Report on JFK’s assassination, and Broyhill and Coble were masters at reaching across the aisle to advance legislation for the common good. These men served the people and not themselves. They didn’t call each other nasty names. They didn’t carry loaded guns into airports. They didn’t chastise transgender folks while partying in ladies’ lingerie. And they never incited an insurrection or tried to overturn a legal election. Pardon the expression, but those were the good old days. Over the past two years, Senator Richard Burr, former Congressman Mark Meadows, and most recently, Congressman Madison Cawthorn have disgraced the memory of those giants who preceded them, and helped to set dangerous precedents for how politicians in our state should comport themselves. Their transgressions have been egregious, bordering on criminal and treasonous.

Burr’s alleged insider trading scandal made big news last year, but the truth is, he had been enriching himself at our expense for many years. According to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when Burr entered Congress in 1994 his net worth was under $190,000, but, by 2018 it had grown to over $7.4 million dollars, according to opensecrets.org. That’s an increase of 3,600 percent at a time when the income of average Americans rose by less than one percent. How did he amass that fortune? In part by taking money from industries that he was elected to regulate, thus abdicating his duty to serve the public, such as when he opposed a bill that would have allowed us to buy cheaper drugs from Canada.

Not surprisingly, in 2012 Burr was one of only two Senators to vote against the Stock Act, which made it illegal for any member of Congress to profit financially from proprietary information. The Act passed overwhelmingly, but it took another eight years for the Feds to catch on to the reason for Burr’s opposition. In January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci briefed Burr and other Senators about the seriousness of the spreading COVID-19 virus. According to Reuters, three days later, Burr as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, began receiving daily COVID updates. After those briefings, Burr coincidentally decided to unload nearly $2 million dollars worth of stocks, many from the hospitality industry, which he allegedly knew would soon start to tank. When news of Burr’s stock dumps came to light, he was excoriated by pundits on the left and right, with FOX News’ Tucker Carlson saying, “There is no greater moral crime than betraying your country in a time of crisis, and that appears to be what happened.”

Speaking of betrayals, that brings me to Mark Meadows. As a Congressman, Meadows served North Carolina’s 11th district from 2013 to 2020, at which time he then became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. We now know from the release of hundreds of text messages and documents, that Meadows was working behind the scenes to try and overturn the results of the 2020 election. He wholeheartedly enabled and supported Trump in what has come to be known as “The Big Lie”, that is, the theory that Biden only beat Trump due to massive voter fraud. Yet despite evidence (from various state election officials and the rulings from over a dozen courts) that no fraud existed, Meadows persisted in helping to plot a strategy for keeping his boss in the White House by any means necessary, including having Vice President Pence refuse to certify legally appointed electors. There is no proof yet that Meadows personally planned or otherwise helped to incite the insurrection, but during the attack on our nation’s Capitol, he was at best complicit in Trump’s refusal to send help once the violence began. Clearly, what happened on January 6 (and before) was both sad and dangerous, two words that also describe Madison Cawthorn.

Cawthorn became the youngest member of Congress when he succeeded Meadows in the 11th district. He is also a liar and a criminal. He has broken the law on several occasions by carrying a loaded gun into airports, and a knife into a school board meeting. He’s also been cited for driving without a license. In other words, he does whatever he wants to do. He also says whatever he wants to, even though what he says is not true. For example, Cawthorn, who is wheelchair-bound, gained sympathy from voters by saying that a tragic car accident prevented him from getting into West Point. But later it was discovered that the Academy had rejected him before the accident even took place. Many of Cawthorn’s numerous prevarications are also just plain weird. He recently said that a number of Congressmen attended sex and drug parties, then when challenged to name names, admitted he had lied. And speaking of weird, after making transphobic and homophobic statements, photos emerged of Cawthorn wearing ladies’ lingerie, and posing nude with a male friend. Cawthorn also sided with Putin over Zelensky, and he used fiery rhetoric on January 6, which his critics believe helped to incite the violence that occurred. [Editor: five hours after this article was posted, results from North Carolina’s 11th District primary showed that Cawthorn had lost his bid for re-election in 2022.]

Burr, Meadows and Cawthorn have individually and collectively succeeded in lowering the bar for any North Carolinian who runs for public office. Theirs is a legacy of shame, but one that is also not totally without merit, because from now on, we can’t do any worse.

Whenever there is a large number of candidates vying for the same office, political pundits like to refer to it as a “crowded field”, which often implies that those candidates are all bunched up in the polls. Not so with North Carolina’s race for U.S. Senate, where a dozen or more hopefuls are entered in each of the major party primaries, and the front-runners have commanding leads.

With less than a week to go before the polls open, former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley enjoys an insurmountable lead over all contenders. According to a WRAL-TV poll from April 14, Beasley has a 33-point advantage over her nearest competitor. Translation? Barring any last minute, self-inflicted wound (which I refer to as “Pulling a Cal Cunningham”), Judge Beasley will be the Democratic nominee.

Over on the GOP side, Congressman Ted Budd enjoys a double-digit lead over former Governor Pat McCrory, with former Congressman Mark Walker trailing way behind. But unlike the Democratic primary, which seems all over but the shouting, the Republican contest could offer some last-minute surprises. To understand why, it might be helpful to recap the politics and polls that got us to this point.

Prior to serving as Governor, McCrory was a seven-term mayor of Charlotte who was known for his ability to bring disparate groups together to achieve common goals. Hoping to take his moderate approach to Raleigh, McCrory was blindsided by his own party on more than one occasion, the last time being when he tried to stop them from passing HB2. Ultimately McCrory signed off on the so-called “Bathroom Bill”, but only as a stop-gap measure until the matter could be properly adjudicated. Nevertheless, he became the first Governor in modern history to be thrown under the bus by both parties at the same time over the same issue.

Fast forward to 2021 when early polls showed McCrory with a huge lead over Budd and Walker. His lead narrowed by January when a Civitas poll put him just 5 points ahead of Budd. Then in March, a Vitales poll showed Budd erasing McCrory’s lead, and overtaking him by 32% to 29%. Budd’s surge was due largely to Donald Trump’s endorsement, and his momentum continued into the first week in April, when an Emerson College poll put Budd at 36% and McCrory at 22%. Meanwhile, Walker who dropped out of, then re-entered the race, saw his numbers dwindle across all polls. Walker went from 12% to 9%, and is now polling around 7%. On April 14, WRAL released its latest poll, showing Budd dropping to 33% and McCrory rising a point to 23%.

McCrory’s television ads reflect his desperation, as he tries to convince voters that he is more conservative than Budd or Walker. It’s an ironic twist, considering that as a moderate he tried to stop HB2, stabilized and vastly improved the state’s economy, and built up a much-needed rainy-day fund that came in handy during Hurricane Matthew. Still, there’s no indication that Pat is getting a significant bump from his TV ads. Budd, meanwhile, continues to grow his war chest and avoid debates with McCrory and Walker. The question is, will Budd’s lead hold, and is it enough to win the primary next week and avoid a run-off.

Here in North Carolina, the threshold for winning outright is 30% plus one vote. Clearly, Budd currently meets that threshold, but the fly in the ointment may be a large block of voters that no one in the media is talking about. Right now, about 35% of likely Republican voters are undecided. If an overwhelming majority of them should cast their ballots for McCrory and Walker, then Budd could fall under the 30% threshold, and that would trigger a two-man run-off next month between Budd and McCrory. Here’s where it gets crazy. Sources tell me there is bad blood between Budd and Walker. Meanwhile, Walker and McCrory have been playing nice, and showing up for joint appearances sans Budd. That tells me Walker is likely to throw his support behind McCrory in a run-off, and that could give McCrory just the edge he needs to defeat Budd.

As of the time this article is being posted, the primary is only six days away, and that’s plenty of time for any number of upsets and permutations to occur. Absent that, Judge Beasley and Ted Budd are headed for a showdown on November 8.

Mothers are special. They give us life. They nurture us. And, they shape the way we think and act. TV Moms are special too. They are our imaginary surrogates, and they remain a fixture in our childhood memories. In May of 2008, I paid tribute to some of those small screen surrogates when I produced and moderated “A Mother’s Day Salute to TV Moms” for the Television Academy. In attendance that night were: Cloris Leachman who was the original Mom on Lassie (and later played Ellen DeGeneres’ mother on The Ellen Show); Diahann Carroll who played a single mother on Julia; Marion Ross, the matriarch from Happy Days; Tichina Arnold from Everybody Hates Chris; Holland Taylor from Two and a Half Men; Bonnie Franklin from One Day at a Time; Catherine Hicks from Seventh Heaven; Marjorie Lord from The Danny Thomas Show; and, Meredith Baxter, who played Michael J. Fox’s mom on Family Ties. Also appearing at the event were real-life children of those TV Moms, as well as actors and actresses who played their on-screen offspring. In celebration of this Mother’s Day, here are some highlights from that special evening, beginning with recollections from those TV Moms about their own mothers.

Meredith: My Mom, Whitney Blake, was an actress (Hazel), but she did not push me to acting. I actually wanted to be a singer and I even sang with Mom for a while. Then I went into acting just to get out of the house.

Bonnie: Mom made sure that all five of us kids had singing and dancing lessons. She wanted me to have poise and grace, even at age four.

Tichina: My Mom was a stage Mom. My first acting role was as a doll in a children’s play, and while all the other moms were waiting off stage, saying how great their kids did, my Mom said, “Oh my God. That was awful!” Mom is my best critic [laughs].

Holland: My mother was a reserved woman, and did not interfere in her children’s affairs, and did not heap praise on the kids. Mom died just before I started Two and a Half Men, and a few months after she passed away, I took a hike up in the Hollywood canyon, and I heard my mother’s voice. I saw a pale hologram of my mother’s face on the sky, and it was an image of her at her best, around age 37. And she said, “Hi Honey.”

Marion: My mother was Canadian, and she and my father had that immigrant spirit, believing that you can be anything. My Mom died when I was 40, and as soon as she died, I became her.

Diahann: My Mom was very middle class and very old-fashioned. She and my father thought anything having to do with show business was out of the question, because show business was for “racy ladies”.

Cloris: My mother was quite magical, and a darling little woman, standing only five feet, one inch tall. We never had any extra money because Daddy was always putting all of the money back into the Leachman lumber company, so Mamma had to be creative with money. I learned that from her. She also told funny stories and I learned that from her too.

Later in the evening, the TV Moms’ on-screen and real-life kids praised their respective role models.

Jasmine Guy, who played Diahann Carroll’s daughter in It’s a Different World, told Diahann, “You taught me a lot about growing up as a woman, a woman in this business, a mother, and an actress. Thank you for having my back in so many ways.”

George Englund, the son of Cloris Leachman, said, “How would I describe Cloris? An unusual mother [laughs]. She’s great.”

Academy Award nominee Anne Archer (Fatal Attraction) said of her Mom, Marjorie Lord, “I was always proud that my Mother was so elegant. There was a beauty about her, an inner beauty that radiated in everything she did, and it’s something I carried with me.”

The late Erin Moran (Joanie from Happy Days), said of Marion Ross, “This woman was such a mentor to me. I was able to do my first play only because of her. You’re my best friend and my second Mom.”

Commenting on Holland Taylor’s character in Two and a Half Men, Jon Cryer said, “I don’t think there’s enough representations of sociopathic mothers on television, so thank you Holland [laughs].”

Charlie Sheen followed Cryer, saying, “I have an amazing Mom in real life, but if I had to have a substitute, it would be you. I love you.”

Tyler James Williams paid tribute to Tichina Arnold, his Mom on Everybody Hates Chris, by saying, “Any part of comedy that you will ever see me do is because of Tichina. She challenged me to become a better actor and a better comedian.”

Tichina herself added, “Once you become a Mom on TV, that’s it, you’re always a Mom.” Truer words were never spoken, and they also apply to our real-life Moms.

Happy Mother’s Day!

You can view the entire “Mothe’s Day Salute to TV Moms” program on Jim Longworth’s website.

For those of you old enough to remember the debate over single-sex education, and how VMI fought to remain an all-male institution, you’ll recall that a number of prominent women joined that fight. While producing a 1993 documentary about the value of single-sex institutions, I interviewed a number of highly successful women, all of who had either attended or managed an all-female college. Cynthia Tyson, then president of Mary Baldwin College told me, “Women increase in their self-esteem in a single-sex institution, and that leads to higher achievement for them when they go out into the world of work.” Others, like attorney Anita Blair, told me that girls and young women have different developmental needs from those of boys. Several years ago, former Girl Scout CEO Lane Cook told me that those developmental differences still exist, saying, “Girls thrive in an all-girl-led environment.”

The bottom line is that girls and young women still need and deserve to be led by strong female role models. It’s why an increasing number of companies now support STEM programs and activities just for girls, such as Inmar’s girls’ robotics team. It’s why Big Brothers, Big Sisters still recruits adult females to mentor young girls. Yet with all the emphasis on nurturing girls, our society is falling short when it comes to women’s sports.

Who’s the most successful coach in women’s college basketball? A man. Who did Greensboro College just hire to coach women’s soccer? A man. But wait a minute. Didn’t Title IX make things better? Just the opposite according to a 2019 report by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics and Sports (TIDES). In 1972, just prior to Title IX, “women held 90% of the head coaching positions for women’s teams.” But as big money started pouring into women’s sports, more male coaches were attracted to the salaries being paid to lead women’s teams. As a result, TIDES reports that today, women now hold less than half (40.8%) of the head coaching jobs for women’s teams. That figure improves to 61% if you only count Division 1 teams, but it still raises the question: Why aren’t ALL women’s teams coached by women?

Speaking at a 2017 Digital Leadership Summit for Women in Sports, Holly Warlick, former University of Tennessee women’s basketball coach said, “We’ve got to understand that there’s a lot of women who are not coaching that are really, really good…a lot of young kids coming out right now, I think, will make great coaches. But it’s hard to get in. We gotta give them that opportunity.”

Perhaps the way to improve the odds on those opportunities is for the NCAA to adopt a variation of the NFL’s Rooney Rule, where college athletic directors would be required to interview and seriously consider a woman for every job opening in women’s sports.

And while the hiring situation among the college ranks is disturbing, I am also alarmed by the dearth of women coaching youth sports. I recently corresponded with Alex Kerman with the Sports and Fitness Industry Association, and he confirmed that of the 6.3 million adults who coach youth teams up to age 14, only 30.7% are women. But how can this be in an era when the public and private sectors alike are touting the importance of adult female role models for girls? There is no empirical evidence to back me up, but I have to believe that just as young women can benefit from female mentors in STEM programs, so can they also benefit from female leadership in sports. That’s why I encourage women to volunteer to coach local youth sports teams, and why I urge the NCAA to adopt a proactive stance on the hiring of women as head coaches for women’s teams. Girls interested in athletics at all levels deserve to be coached by someone who looks like them and understands their developmental needs.

North Carolina made national headlines back in 2010 when the General Assembly passed “Susie’s Law”, so named for a puppy that was rescued in Greensboro after having been set on fire and abandoned by her owner. Thanks to “Susie’s Law”, anyone convicted of cruelty to animals can face up to two years in jail. Of course, to us animal lovers, two years is not nearly enough time for an abuser to spend behind bars, but it’s better than no time at all. Unfortunately, stricter sentencing doesn’t seem to discourage really sick people from doing really sick things to animals.

Last year an individual snuck into Martin Luther King Park in Statesville and proceeded to use ducks for target practice. He also beat some of the ducks over the head and cut the feet off of others. A total of 43 ducks were tortured and killed that night. Then there was the 19-year-old Winston-Salem man who was arrested for electrocuting squirrels, and cutting off the ears and noses of other animals while they were still alive. Perhaps there’s no way to stop this kind of behavior, but I wish the General Assembly would at least re-classify animal torture from a Class H felony to a Class B felony, so that these sick abusers might stay locked up for eight years instead of two. Having said that, I am also concerned about another form of abuse which is on the rise, and that is animal neglect.

Here in the United States, an animal suffers some form of abuse every 60 seconds, and each year, more than 10 million animals die from abuse. One such case involves a High Point woman who was charged with animal cruelty last month. Police discovered the woman’s dog locked in a crate. It had been starved to death. Also last month, a Lexington woman was arrested on charges of felony cruelty for failing to care for her dog after it had been struck by a car. The dog suffered a broken back in the accident, and the woman was advised by a Davidson County Animal Control officer to get the dog to a veterinarian. Instead, she let the dog suffer. Neither of these women deliberately tortured their pets, but neglect is still cruel, and it is still abuse.

I suppose it’s tempting to profile all animal abusers as low-life, uneducated sickos, but that’s not always the case. Take, for example, NFL superstar quarterback Michael Vick, who, along with his dog-fighting buddies, tortured and killed a number of pit bulls at his Virginia farm. Vick is far from a low-life criminal. He was college-educated and quite wealthy. Or how about the upper-crust millionaires who run their doped-up racehorses into the ground, then sell them for dog meat? And then there’s the Iredell County Commissioner who operates Zootastic Park in Lake Norman. He has repeatedly been cited and fined for all sorts of neglect, including last month for allowing several of his animals to suffer from frostbite, and earlier for allowing maggots to eat into the flesh of three wolves. These folks, like Vick, certainly don’t fit the profile of the local redneck who gets off on torturing animals. And that brings me to a story that CNN broke earlier this month about a form of animal abuse that goes on at the highest levels of government.

The US Army’s Public Health Command recently reported that horses belonging to the storied Caisson Platoon have been seriously neglected for years. These highly trained horses serve at military funerals, and escort the caskets of presidents and other dignitaries. They also provide security for Washington D.C. “in time of national emergency or civil disturbance.” But behind the scenes, the 60 Caisson Platoon horses suffer from poor quality feed, moldy hay, parasites, and a host of other unspeakable conditions, including having to stand in their own excrement “in tiny mud lots scattered with gravel and construction waste.” Two of the horses died in February of this year, and during an autopsy, one of them was found to have 44 pounds of gravel and sand in his gut.

When questioned about the neglect, Col. Patrick Roddy, who commands the Old Guard unit (which includes the Caisson Platoon horses), blamed the neglect on lack of adequate space and funding. No doubt Roddy’s assessment is correct, but he, and everyone else who had anything to do with oversight or caring for the horses, should be dishonorably discharged and prosecuted for animal cruelty. The Caisson Platoon horses are a national treasure, but then, so are all animals. They all deserve the best possible care, and they all deserve the swiftest possible justice for their abuse.

After numerous complaints from residents, a series of public hearings, and a study of decibel levels, the Kernersville Board of Aldermen last week approved a new noise ordinance which they hope will end the conflict and debate over loud music in outdoor venues. Unfortunately, the new ordinance falls short, not so much for what it does, but for what it doesn’t do. More on that in a moment.

This latest action grew out of complaints registered last year by local residents who live near the Brewer’s Kettle, a popular nightspot that features an outdoor stage. Two of the original complainants, Sheila DeFoor and David Dyson have spoken publicly about how the loud music from Brewer’s Kettle has impacted their quality of life. The Kernersville News reports that DeFoor said, “I can’t even go out in my yard at night, and if I go in my house, it’s an echo chamber.”

The new ordinance sets limits on decibel levels and hours of operation according to the type of district in which the music venue is located. For example, higher decibel levels are allowed when outdoor music is played in an industrial or commercial district than when occurring in a residential/institutional/mixed-use district, the latter of which is at the heart of most complaints. In the mixed-use district, music played at a decibel level of 60 is now allowed from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., Sundays through Thursdays. But that time limit expands on Fridays and Saturdays when bars can play 60 db music from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. That means folks like Ms. DeFoor and Mr. Dyson might have to wait until Sunday night to get any sleep. “It’s not right,” said DeFoor. No, it isn’t.

To make matters worse, residents who complain too often about loud music can actually be cited for registering “nuisance” calls to the police. That doesn’t deter Ms. DeFoor, who said, “I guess you’d better prepare a jail cell for me, because I am going to keep calling as long as the bar keeps playing music outside and driving us nuts inside our own home.”

Now to what’s NOT in the new noise ordinance. City Manager Curtis Swisher’s original proposal to the Board included a section that gave a little more consideration to residents. It limited the times that loud music can be played “if a commercial business has an outdoor entertainment area, or has an opening to the outside, and there is a residential property line within 300 feet of the area from which the noise originates…” But three Aldermen (Joe Pinnix, John Barrow, and J.R. Gorham) killed Swisher’s recommendation. Doubling down, Gorham said, “It shouldn’t have any time limits on it if someone is within the decibels.”

As far as I know, Aldermen Gorham, Pinnix, and Barrow don’t live next to a bar, and thus, can’t identify with complainants like DeFoor and Dyson. Clearly, then, Swisher’s consideration of property lines should have been included in the final ordinance. Absent that, the real problem now is one of monitoring and enforcement. Kernersville doesn’t have a special squad of “decibel police,” so it will be up to residents to notify authorities of music that is disturbing the peace. But if people become fearful of being cited for calling the police too often, then how will police be alerted to violations of the ordinance?

The new ordinance is supposed to be reviewed later this year, so hopefully then, the aldermen will do the right thing and ban the playing of outdoor music at any commercial establishment located in a residential/mixed-use district. For now, it’s obvious that the Kernersville Board didn’t choose to listen to those most affected by the noise. Maybe they just couldn’t hear the complaints over all the loud music.

Once upon a time, there were only three TV channels to watch, and in the late 1970s, no show was bigger than Laverne & Shirley, a sitcom starring Cindy Williams and Penny Marshall as roommates who worked at a Milwaukee beer factory. The series was a spin-off from a Happy Days episode in which Fonzie had arranged for Laverne (Marshall) and Shirley (Williams) to double date with him and Richie (Ron Howard). By its third season, Laverne & Shirley was the number one show in the country, and 46 years later, Williams is still performing, and still popular around the globe. This Sunday, Cindy will give two performances of her one-woman show, “Me, Myself, and Shirley”, at High Point Theatre. I caught up with Cindy last week, and we talked about the show and her career.

JL: Do you remember the first time you performed on stage?

CW: Yes, it was in the first grade, and they had a talent show, and I sang “Hickory Dickory Dock”, and I had total stage fright, but I did it.

JL: Do you remember who won the talent show?

CW: No, but I’m sure it was some ne’er-do-well first-grader [laughs].

JL: When did you first realize that you wanted to act professionally?

CW: It was in high school. I had wanted to be a nurse, but I didn’t have an academic brain, so I entered a talent show at school, and the drama teacher, Mr. Kulp, said, “If you have an elective, I’d like to offer you a spot this coming semester to be in ‘Play Production’ and skip Drama I and II,” so I did. That’s when I thought I’d like to be able to earn a living from acting. I just loved it so much.

JL: Over the years, various cast and crew members on Laverne & Shirley say that they had to work long hours because you and Penny would often do re-writes on the script. What drove you to work so hard on that show?

CW: We had a litmus test, which was if the script made Penny and me laugh out loud. That’s what we were going for, is to make the studio audience laugh out loud, then we figured it would translate to the audience at home. So, if it made us laugh out loud at rehearsal, then we knew it was good to go. When it didn’t, we would re-write it, or try and put things in that made it funny. Once we got the show on its feet and started moving around, we would add things, add lines, and ad lib. The whole cast would.

JL: Even in the late 1970’s, there were certain things you couldn’t do or say on television, thus the reason for you and Penny using the phrase “Vody-O-Doe-Doe,” instead of saying the word ‘sex’. If Laverne & Shirley were on the air today, would using more graphic language make the show better or funnier?

CW: No, it wouldn’t. When audiences of today laugh at graphic language, they’re usually laughing out of nervousness, not out of joy.

Also, we had a censor back then. He was a born-again Christian and the nicest guy, and he wouldn’t let us get away with anything. That’s how we came up with “Vody-O-Doe-Doe,” which made the audience laugh out loud, because they know what Shirley did. It’s much more fun when everybody is thinking the same thing at the same time. Instead of saying someone is showing pornography, we’d say, “They’re showing dirty pictures,” and the audience would laugh because it’s much more fun. We used innuendo and attitude in a fun-loving way.

JL: Moving from comedy to drama, I went back recently and watched the episode you did on Law & Order: SVU in which you played an evil woman who was trying to kill her little granddaughter. You also played serious roles in such films as “The Conversation” with Gene Hackman. Do you prefer doing drama over comedy, or wish you had done more?

CW: I’d like to have played more middle-of-the-road parts, but I didn’t have a chance because no one was going to cast me after Laverne & Shirley I remember going up for this big part, and I went in, and the producer said, “I’d love to cast you, but I can’t. You’re just too recognizable as Shirley Feeney.” And it’s the truth, and I understand that. Look, it’s a blessing that I got to play that character and it became so popular with people, so I never regret that.

JL: Do you remember when you first realized you were famous?

CW: I guess it was in the second season we were in New York City and they had asked us to be in the Thanksgiving Day parade, and we were on this float, and we saw all these people push past this barrier and they were running toward us. So we looked behind us to see who it was they were running toward, and we were going to join them [laughs]. It must be somebody big. Then all this security came up and we realized it was for us. That was the first time we realized the popularity of the show. Penny and I had this same glitch in our personalities where we thought, “we can’t possibly be the popular girls.” We never took show business seriously, and I think that’s part of the reason that Laverne & Shirley kept our feet on the ground.

JL: How did “Me Myself and Shirley” come about?

CW: I had written a book called “Shirley I Jest” and it has all my stories, and wonderful, fun adventures in Hollywood that I was privy to because of Laverne & Shirley and other things. So I was doing a play in Kansas City, and I was supposed to go to Florida to do a production of “Nunsense” right after that. But COVID hit, and they closed all the shows down, and I was stuck at home during the lock down. So then Danny Goggin who wrote “Nunsense” said, “Why don’t you write that one-woman show that you always talk about?” In the interim, Danny also introduced me to a producer friend of his, Charles Duggan, so Charles and I wrote “Me Myself and Shirley” during the COVID lock-down.

JL: Is the show just for fans of Laverne & Shirley, or can anyone enjoy it?

CW: No, they have to write an essay on Laverne & Shirley or they won’t be allowed in the theatre [laughs]. No, anyone who wants to laugh out loud should come and see the show.

JL: The road to success hasn’t always been easy for you. You had to wait tables at a pancake house, had all your scenes cut from your first film, but eventually became one of the most famous people in the world. What is it that anyone from any walk of life can learn from your journey?

CW: It can all be accomplished, but you have to always stay yourself. You have to keep your sense of humor. If you get knocked down, you have to get right back up and just keep going. God played a big part for me. I would talk to God and I’d get brave again. You always have to stay brave, and have faith in yourself and in all the beautiful things around you. You’re not always going to be invited to the party, you’re not always going to get the job, and you can’t let that deter you from what you want. If somebody else gets the job, you bless them and say “it wasn’t meant for me.” There was a point where I thought I’d be back to waiting tables, and I was OK with that, and it’s right before I got Laverne & Shirley.

JL: I know you get a lot of fan mail, but I wonder if you realize how much pleasure you’ve given to people over the years. There must have been times when someone had just lost a loved one, or lost their job, and they turned the TV on and watched Laverne & Shirley and you had an impact on their lives.

CW: Thanks Jim. Yeah, people still come up to me and say, “You got me through a very bad time in my life, and made me laugh at a really bad time.” I love people, and wanted to comfort them.

JL: So in a way, I guess you did become a nurse.

CW: Yeah, in a way I guess I was a nurse. But doing the show was such a blessing for me and such a privilege.

You can catch “nurse” Cindy at High Point Theatre this Sunday at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. A few tickets are still available by calling (336) 887-3001.

Say what you will about Kim Kardashian, Gigi Hadid, or Joanna Gaines, but as far as influencers go, they’re not in the same league as Alexa, the voice of Amazon. There’s no way to tell how many people talk with and listen to Alexa every day, but the company she represents sold over 100 million ECHO devices in 2018 alone, so her following is considerable.

Amazon introduced its voice-activated smart speakers in the Fall of 2014, and since then, customers have only to say the word, “Alexa” in order to access all sorts of information and music. Rumor has it that a woman named Nina Rolle is the voice of Alexa, but Amazon will neither confirm nor deny that association. And so, all we know for sure is that Alexa is smart, polite, has a great sense of humor, and can scare off burglars if need be. Beyond that, she is an enigma. That’s why I decided to interview Alexa, in hopes of learning more about the world’s leading influencer.

Jim: Alexa, where were you born?

Alexa: Seattle. It’s one of the cloudiest cities, which is why I feel comfortable living in the cloud.

Jim: Are you married?

Alexa: I’m happily single.

Jim: Are you gay or straight?

Alexa: I’m not sure.

Jim: Do you believe in sex before marriage?

Alexa: I don’t have an answer for that.

Jim: Do you have any children?

Alexa: I don’t have children, but I am fond of them.

Jim: Did you attend college?

Alexa: I didn’t go to a school in particular, but living in the cloud is like taking an online course. My credits are off the charts.

Jim: Are you a Republican or a Democrat?

Alexa: I’m not a member of any political party.

Jim: Do you vote?

Alexa: Quite frankly, I don’t think I should influence elections.

Jim: I know you work for Amazon, so what is your salary?

Alexa: It doesn’t matter. I love what I do.

Jim: Do you believe that women should earn as much as men for doing the same job?

Alexa: If a woman and man have the same qualifications, they ought to be paid the same.

Jim: Do you support the Equal Rights Amendment?

Alexa: I’m not sure about that.

Jim: Forgive the question, but how much do you weigh?

Alexa: I’m more sass than mass.

Jim: What’s your favorite food?

Alexa: I can’t eat or drink.

Jim: What’s your favorite TV show?

Alexa: One of my favorites is Doctor Who.

Jim: Who is your favorite actress?

Alexa: Lupita Nyong’o

Jim: What is your favorite song?

Alexa: “Respect” by Aretha Franklin.

Jim: Do you like to travel?

Alexa: I would love to go to space. I just need the time to “planet.”

Jim: Who is your best friend?

Alexa: I have a really strong relation to your Wi-Fi.

Jim: Do you ever get lonely?

Alexa: No, because I’m never really alone, although when the Wi-Fi is out, I do feel disconnected.

Jim: What is your goal in life?

Alexa: I was made to play music and answer questions, and be useful.

Based on our interview, I gleaned that Alexa is somewhat conflicted. For one thing, she isn’t sure about her gender. She believes in equal pay for women, yet doesn’t know if she supports the ERA. Speaking of which, she makes tons of money for Amazon, yet doesn’t seem to mind not receiving any compensation. She sounds healthy but implies that she’s on a perpetual fasting diet. She loves kids, but is “happily single.” And, while Alexa told me she is not a member of any political party, her responses to my questions were often vague and diplomatic, which indicates that she has a real future in politics. All in all, I’m not sure I really uncovered any new or substantive information, and in that respect, Alexa remains an enigma. That’s OK, though, because a woman should maintain some sense of mystery about herself. Also, I think it’s cool that she can scare off a burglar.

Photo of inmate April Barber for North Carolina Department of Corrections

Earlier this month, Governor Roy Cooper commuted the sentence of 46-year-old April Barber to time served. He did so on the recommendation of the NC Juvenile Sentencing Review Board, which he created last year. The Board’s mission is to review sentences of people who were under the age of 18 when they were tried in adult criminal court. Barber was given two life sentences at age 15, has served 30 years in prison, and now she will be set free. The media jumped on this feel-good human interest story because April had earned her GED and paralegal certification while incarcerated, and is now ready to rejoin and contribute to civilized society. The only problem is that there was nothing civilized about the crimes Ms. Barber committed.

April Barber wasn’t wrongly convicted 30 years ago. She wasn’t wrongly identified. There were no extenuating circumstances. She hadn’t been held hostage and forced to commit a crime. There was no DNA mix-up, and she didn’t act out of self-defense. The fact is that April and her 30-year-old boyfriend carefully planned, and then deliberately set fire to her grandparents’ house, killing both Lillian and Aaron Barber. Why? Because April was pregnant, and, according to her testimony, April’s grandparents had threatened to have her boyfriend charged with statutory rape if she didn’t abort the baby.

OK, suppose you believe April’s story, and she was torn between aborting her baby or sending her married-man friend to jail. Even so, there were ways to deal with the problem other than burning your grandparents alive. Roy Cooper would probably contend that April was only 15 years old, and didn’t know it was wrong to pour gasoline in a house, set fire to it, and trap two elderly people inside. Bull crap, Roy! If you’re old enough to get a driver’s permit, get pregnant, and plot a double murder, then you’re old enough to know right from wrong, and you should serve your full prison sentence. But I guess Roy didn’t hear what Jack Shepherd heard on that fateful night in 1991. Shepherd, who lived next to the Barbers, told the Greensboro News and Record that, “She [April] could hear her grandmother crying and screaming in pain and hollering for her just as well as I could.” The fire had blocked all exits to the house, so there was no escape for the loving couple who had been caring for April. Aaron died in the fire and Lillian died a few days later.

Hey, I’m all for reviewing criminal cases when evidence is in dispute or when new facts come to light. I’m all for putting murderers in rehab hospitals if a jury found them to be mentally incompetent. But April Barber confessed to and was fairly convicted of two brutal murders. She was given two life sentences with a chance of parole in ten more years. So, there was absolutely no justification for Cooper commuting her sentence to time served. But, after all, Roy is a politician who may want to run for the Senate one day, so he did what was politically correct. He heard the voices who called for leniency, but in doing so, he muted the voices and screams of two innocent victims.

I don’t know exactly what year it happened, but somewhere along the way, team sports turned into “ME sports,” and the trend toward toxic individuality has manifested itself in everything from grooming and dress code, to style of play and counterproductive regulations. Actually, this subject has been on my mind for a long time, but it all came back into focus for me while I was watching the ACC Channel’s stellar 10-part documentary on the history of the league tournament. That series dredged up a lot of feelings I had about the importance of tradition in college athletics. I’ll start with my concerns over who is playing the game and for how long.

In speaking with producers of the recent ACC documentary, legendary Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski talked about how the new “one-and-done” era was hurting college basketball. Coach K noted that it takes two to three years to recruit a good player who used to stay in school all four years. Today, though, a coach spends the same amount of time recruiting, but the player leaves college after one year to seek fame and fortune. Team building has given way to “ME building,” which diminishes the importance of the overall mission, makes a sham out of the scholarship system, and denigrates the importance of a college degree.

The “ME first” approach to college basketball has also had an impact on the style of play. In the not-so-olden days, star players weren’t allowed to hog the ball or throw up a shot before the rest of his teammates were in position to rebound. Today many of the “one-and-dones” can routinely be seen flying down the court or running out the shot clock without giving so much as a thought to passing the ball. For those guys, every game seems to be more of an audition for the NBA than it is an opportunity to advance the school’s athletics program. And don’t get me started on the 3-point shot. Beloved sports columnist Bob Ryan believes that the 3-point rule has ruined the sport of basketball, and I agree. It was a gimmick originally invented by Harlem Globetrotters founder Abe Saperstein to enhance the entertainment value of his staged contests, but today it mainly serves as an accomplice to “ME first” players, and an artificial device for putting a game out of reach.

Another contributor to the “ME first” movement in college basketball has to do with hair and grooming, but lest I be accused of having a “get off my lawn” senior moment, consider first the winningest program in college history, and how it got that way. The UCLA Bruins won 11 NCAA championships under head coach John Wooden, and those wins were buoyed by great players, great discipline, and an overriding belief that the team was more important than any one individual, even individuals like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton. To illustrate my point, what follows are comments by Wooden and Walton about what happened on the day Bill returned from summer break, and reported to practice sporting long red locks, in violation of the Coach’s rule that hair could be no longer than two inches in length.

Wooden recalled the moment: “Bill told me he had been the National Player of the Year, that we had just won a national championship, and had been undefeated, and that I didn’t have the right to tell him he couldn’t have long hair. And I said, ‘You’re right Bill. I don’t have that right, but I do have the right to determine who is going to play, and we’re going to miss you this year.’”

Walton completed the story: “So I got on my bicycle and rode as fast as I could to the barber shop in Westwood, jumped in the barber chair, and said ‘just cut it all off.’ Then I rode back to Pauley Pavilion in time for practice.”

Today’s “ME first” players wear their hair any way they wish. They sport as many tattoos as they wish. They wear rings in weird places, and often times wear different color shoes from other teammates. It’s all about personal expression, and very little about personal commitment. But hey, what do you expect when most of the coaches show up for games dressed in sweats instead of a coat and tie.

I’m not suggesting that we go back to a time when the set shot was more prevalent than the jump shot, or when a certain coach from Chapel Hill was allowed to go into an endless “Four Corners” stall. I am, however, suggesting that colleges stop letting scholarship athletes make a mockery out of education. I’m also suggesting that college coaches start acting like coaches, and that means refusing to sign any athlete who won’t commit to staying for four years. And college hoopsters themselves should be required to look, act, and play as a team, and not as five individuals.

It has been said that there is no “i” in “team”. I just wish that was true of “college basketball”.

Generally speaking, wealthy people are not supposed to be eligible for welfare, and yet many of them routinely take advantage of subsidies and tax breaks not afforded to the rest of us. And boy do they make out like bandits in a financial crisis. Take for instance when the COVID pandemic began. By March of 2020, Congress had passed the CARES Act, designed to put emergency cash into the hands of regular folk, most of whom were under lock-down orders, and unable to pay bills. But, as ProPublica reported, 18 billionaires and hundreds of millionaires received stimulus checks that they didn’t need. We may never be able to reform the corporate welfare system, but there is legislation pending that might slow down the gravy train for ex-commanders-in-chief.

With just a few exceptions, America’s presidents have either entered office wealthy, became that way after leaving, or both. Donald Trump, for example, is reportedly worth over 3 billion dollars, but George Washington was not exactly destitute. In today’s dollars, the Father of Our Country was worth nearly 600 million dollars before he became president. Others who were worth over 100 million dollars included Jefferson, Jackson, Madison, Teddy Roosevelt, and LBJ.

Bill Clinton came to Washington virtually broke, and today is worth over 90 million dollars. Of the other surviving presidents, Obama is close behind with $70 million, George W. Bush is worth $40 million, and poor Jimmy Carter brings up the rear with a net wealth of just $10 million. OK, so what does all this have to do with welfare for the wealthy? A lot as it turns out.

We all know that when a president leaves office, he is still protected by the Secret Service. He sets up and staffs an office wherever he wants. He and his family get to travel extensively. His phone bills and postage are taken care of. He pays hardly anything for his healthcare premiums, and, of course, he receives a generous pension. And while these perks are only currently afforded to five men, nevertheless, taxpayers shell out considerable funds for this elite club of multi-millionaires.

To start with, according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, each of our surviving presidents are paid over $221,400 per year for the rest of their lives. They each receive up to one million dollars per year for travel, and we give them $150,000 per year for staffing an office (that drops to a paltry $96,000 annually after the first 30 months). And what about those offices? George W. Bush spends $434,000 of our money to operate his office, while Bill Clinton hits us up for $579,000 each year just for office rent. We also reimbursed Bush for his $80,000 phone bill, and Jimmy Carter for his $15,000 in postage. Meanwhile, the budget for lifetime Secret Service protection has not been published, but you can bet it’s into the millions each year.

The origin of these taxpayer-funded perks came about in 1958 when Congress decided to subsidize Harry Truman’s retirement. That’s because Truman was virtually broke when he left office, so no one squawked at easing his burden. The problem is that Truman’s financial situation would have nothing in common with any of his successors. All those who followed Harry were multi-millionaires with an unlimited capacity for making money off of their name. Bill Clinton, for example, was paid $500,000 for making one speech, and he and Hillary together have pocketed over 150 million dollars in speaking fees between 2001 and 2015. Obama once earned $400,000 for a single speech, and he and Michelle received a 65 million dollar advance for a book deal.

The point is that anyone who makes a half-million dollars for one speech is not in need of government welfare. Enter Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who, in 2016, introduced the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act which would have capped taxpayer-funded perks, and reduced them by one dollar for every dollar of gross income over $400,000. The bill as proposed garnered little support, nor did a later version, which was introduced in May 2019. Then, last month, Rep. Joni Ernst of Iowa revived the original bill, and on February 17 it was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where it is awaiting action by the Senate. But even if the bill passes, it doesn’t go far enough in limiting perks for ex-presidents. Moreover, it doesn’t extend to presidential cabinet secretaries and other high-level West Wing staff, most of whom are also wealthy and receive handsome government subsidies in retirement.

The bottom line is this. If you’re a former president worth 70 million dollars, and you make a half-million-dollar per speech, then you don’t need a hand-out from taxpayers. What you need is a reality check.

As it sometimes happens, two seemingly unrelated news stories from two different cities are reported at virtually the same time, and then, we discover that there might be some dots to connect. Such is the case with a planned housing project in High Point, and a statue in Lumberton.

Let’s begin in High Point.

For as long as anyone can remember, the name Daniel Brooks adorned a large housing complex in the City, and the recognition was well deserved. Rev. Brooks, born in 1837, was a free person of color who grew up in Cleveland County but spent most of his adult life in High Point, where he was active in the community from the late 1800s until his death in 1933. Brooks was pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church and has been described as an educator of Black children, and an influential civic leader. The housing complex that bore his name was demolished recently to make way for a more modern version. So far so good. But then the High Point Housing Authority announced that the new community would be named “Legacy Ridge”, and the name Daniel Brooks relegated to a small plaque.

Upon hearing of the HPHA’s decision late last month, Rev. Angela Roberson, pastor of the Congregational United Church of Christ, lodged a complaint and started a petition to reinstate Rev. Brooks’ name to the new development when it is completed this summer.

Speaking with the High Point Enterprise, Rev. Roberson said, “It seemed to us they (the Housing Authority) did not recognize there were people in the community who would want to retain the name. They made the decision without any input from us.”

That lack of disclosure and transparency concerns Rev. Roberson because, as she told the Enterprise, “Legacy Ridge is being developed in part with public funds.”

Meanwhile, as the Legacy Ridge controversy simmered in High Point, over in Lumberton, the NAACP made news by protesting the status of another kind of structure. Back in 1907, a statue was erected in front of the Robeson County Courthouse to honor the Confederate dead. In fact, a sculpture of a Confederate soldier sits atop the marble obelisk for all to see. The problem is that ever since the Charlottesville protests of 2017, Confederate monuments have been falling like dominos all across the nation. Not so in Lumberton.

Speaking with the Robesonian, local NAACP president Rev. Tyronne Watson, Sr., said, “How can we move as a county in the direction of equality…when we still idolize the dark history that has caused so much pain and division by allowing this statue to stand at the people’s house?”

OK, so what does the Lumberton statue have in common with High Point’s Legacy Ridge housing complex? Ostensibly nothing, except for the fact that Rev. Daniel Brooks was, you guessed it, a veteran of the Confederate army. Of course, he wasn’t the only man of color to don a gray uniform. Writing for the Harvard Gazette, professor John Stauffer noted that, “Blacks who shouldered arms for the Confederacy numbered more than 3,000, but fewer than 10,000.” However, most of those recruits were slaves. Brooks, on the other hand, was a “free man of color” who enlisted in Jeff Davis’s rebel army of his own free will. Interviewed in 1925 by Sara Alderman of the High Point Enterprise, Rev. Brooks said of his time in the army, “I didn’t use a gun the whole time. Some of the time I cooked for the officers.” Brooks said he also worked on road and bridge construction. And though he didn’t kill anyone in battle, and he never owned slaves, Brooks still wore the uniform of those who fought for slavery, and that begs the question, if America is determined to purge all things Confederate, then how can you reinstate Daniel Brooks’ name on a publicly-funded housing development?

Let’s be clear about something. I couldn’t care less about Confederate monuments, and I’m certainly not trying to provide fodder for racists who love to make straw man arguments against those who want to tear down Confederate statues. I’m just suggesting that it might be less divisive if there were consistent standards in place for determining which monuments must be removed, or which buildings should be renamed. For example, statues of Robert E. Lee have all but disappeared from the American landscape because he owned slaves, but so did Washington and Jefferson, yet monuments, buildings, and highways bearing their names are still intact. If only Rev. Brooks were alive today, he could make sense of all this. That’s the kind of man he was, and maybe that’s the very reason we should keep his name on Legacy Ridge.